PC 081215 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Nagler stated that when he looked at the plan, read the staff report, walked around the site, and thought about it, there were several things that strike him about the project overall: 1. It is a remarkably small amount of land for 27 home sites; it is quite dense, and the development is obviously trying to squeeze the maximum number of lots because the economics of the project ought to be the best they can be and because Ponderosa, in fact, does have pre- existing home plans that it wants to take and put into this development and, therefore, hopscotch lots in a way that it can get a maximum number of lots for a pre- existing design on a relatively small plot of land. 2. Given the history of this project and the fact that it has been going on for decades and has been part of General Plans, it is inappropriate that the Commission was not able to have a Work Session where it could have had conversations about open space and density and the appropriateness of pre- existing home designs fitting into this development. While Planning Commissions and City Councils have considered this plot of land for many decades, this particular Planning Commission and this particular City Council have not. 3. There probably is a way, without the density, to make the traffic flow and the layout of the development more appealing. What are most visible from those who pass by the development are two parking lots: the hammerhead parking lot and the parking lot on the east side of the neighborhood. The question is whether that is the most appropriate allocation or appearance for the neighborhood for this piece of land. 4. With respect to the question of the amenity as stated in the staff report, it would have been good to have had an opportunity to ask whether the future construction on the school site should be reconfigured since it has not been built yet, whether that and some other changes might have allowed for an amenity that was not simply an upgrade of an existing green space because in fact, the town and the neighborhood already enjoy the site of the proposed amenity as a green space, and so in a sense, there is no real value add for what's being proposed. There is question whether that is the maximum value that the project can provide with the requirement for an amenity. Commissioner Nagler stated that he believed there is an approvable project that ought to be approved for this site, and he does not know whether this is the right project because the Commission has not had a chance to adequately consider it. Commissioner O'Connor stated that he was also looking at the site plan and what is visible from Valley Avenue, and he believes that the hammerhead area and the parking area can be addressed with some landscaping along those roads to help block the immediate visibility of the parking lot. He indicated that he did not really spend enough time looking at any landscape plan to see if that was going to be adequate, but if it is not PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 12, 2015 Page 14 of 34